Thanatos 2,847 Posted June 7, 2012 The Thunder played amazing, especially Durant, in the 2nd half and the Spurs just could not get it going after using so much energy. Whoever wins the East will lose to the Thunder in 6 and we will see the beginning of a dynasty. The Thunder are that good and so young still. Durant will become the best player currently in the league very soon. I think it's a little premature to be crowning them as a dynasty. I remember the same thing happening after GB won their Superbowl. They will be a very good team for a long time to come, provided they can hang onto all their major players, or at least the four core ones, but a dynasty, when they haven't even won one championship yet, strikes me as rather premature. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BwareDWare94 723 Posted June 7, 2012 I think it's a little premature to be crowning them as a dynasty. I remember the same thing happening after GB won their Superbowl. They will be a very good team for a long time to come, provided they can hang onto all their major players, or at least the four core ones, but a dynasty, when they haven't even won one championship yet, strikes me as rather premature. If they win one, it isn't. Calling any team a dynasty before they've won multiple Super Bowls is dumb, because the NFL is not nearly as top heavy as the NBA. When you're good in the NBA, you're good for a long time. Especially if you stay healthy. With this core, we may be looking at a dynasty. It might not start this year, but they will win a title either this year or next year barring injury. Yes. They are that good. About the only way they could get better is to sign a post player who can score (Carl Landry) or sign another wing to score off the bench (Stephen Jackson). There are some quality role player free agents out there this summer. OKC should look into at least the two I've mentioned. I beleive Jackson will be a UFA. Not sure. I know Landry is going to be one. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BwareDWare94 723 Posted June 7, 2012 (edited) I think it's a little premature to be crowning them as a dynasty. I remember the same thing happening after GB won their Superbowl. They will be a very good team for a long time to come, provided they can hang onto all their major players, or at least the four core ones, but a dynasty, when they haven't even won one championship yet, strikes me as rather premature. Double post fail. Can mod fix? Edited June 7, 2012 by BwareDWare94 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SteVo+ 3,702 Posted June 7, 2012 Calling any team a dynasty before they've won multiple Super Bowls is dumb, because the NFL is not nearly as top heavy as the NBA. When you're good in the NBA, you're good for a long time. Especially if you stay healthy. That's a really good point. I think the definition of "dynasty" should definitely vary for differing leagues, because I would say it's easier to win multiple championships in the NBA than it is in the NFL. The Thunder are certainly set up for it, though. I don't know what their free agent situation is but they've got a hell of a team. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Phailadelphia Posted June 7, 2012 As currently constructed, OKC will be together for at least 1 more year. Anything beyond that hinges on how much money Harden and Ibaka request. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BwareDWare94 723 Posted June 7, 2012 That's a really good point. I think the definition of "dynasty" should definitely vary for differing leagues, because I would say it's easier to win multiple championships in the NBA than it is in the NFL. The Thunder are certainly set up for it, though. I don't know what their free agent situation is but they've got a hell of a team. Exactly. Both Durant and Westbrook would have to have season ending injuries early on in order for the Thunder to miss the playoffs next year (and this would have to be EARLY, because if they're fifty games in and are something like 42-8, they would still get enough wins with Harden and Ibaka to qualify. On the other hand, the NFC East is so good this year that the Giants could conceivably finish third or even fourth if RG3 is as advertised. Is it likely? No. But it could happen without drastic injuries. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BwareDWare94 723 Posted June 7, 2012 As currently constructed, OKC will be together for at least 1 more year. Anything beyond that hinges on how much money Harden and Ibaka request. And whether or not Durant and Westbrook are willing to restructure, which I have a feeling they will be. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SteVo+ 3,702 Posted June 7, 2012 As currently constructed, OKC will be together for at least 1 more year. Anything beyond that hinges on how much money Harden and Ibaka request. But Durant and Westbrook are locked up, I assume? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
blotsfan 2,112 Posted June 7, 2012 Yeah westbrook signed an extension this year. Even took a bit of a hit by not getting a max contract, as the thunder couldnt give out a second one thanks to Durant's deal. And Bware, I don't think you can restructure your contracts in the NBA the same way they can in the NFL since all the money is guaranteed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Phailadelphia Posted June 7, 2012 But Durant and Westbrook are locked up, I assume? Correct, both for 5 more years. Yeah westbrook signed an extension this year. Even took a bit of a hit by not getting a max contract, as the thunder couldnt give out a second one thanks to Durant's deal. And Bware, I don't think you can restructure your contracts in the NBA the same way they can in the NFL since all the money is guaranteed. Westbrook could re-structure his contract but likely won't. He could have waited until the end of the season and got an extra like $15 million for making another All-NBA team but chose not to, instead saving that cap space for Harden/Ibaka extensions. Durant, on the other hand, cannot re-structure because his contract was signed under the previous CBA agreement. The homer in me believes the brotherhood (that's honestly not seen on most NBA teams) and dynasty potential of the Thunder will entice Harden and Ibaka to stick around for less money. The realist believes they'll both be offered max contracts by other teams after the 2012-2013 season and be moved. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
blotsfan 2,112 Posted June 7, 2012 Well, theres no way they're getting max contracts. Harden and Ibaka are very good supporting players, but not the guys you'd build a team around. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zack_of_Steel+ 3,014 Posted June 7, 2012 Well, theres no way they're getting max contracts. Harden and Ibaka are very good supporting players, but not the guys you'd build a team around. I'd say that Harden is. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
blotsfan 2,112 Posted June 7, 2012 I wouldn't. When I say "build around" I mean "you can win a championship with him as your top player." I'm not even sure if westbrook fits in that category, let alone harden. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Phailadelphia Posted June 7, 2012 (edited) Joe Johnson isn't a franchise player either but look at his past 2 contracts. There are a lot of very bad GMs in the NBA. Edited June 7, 2012 by Phailadelphia Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
blotsfan 2,112 Posted June 7, 2012 Joe Johnson isn't a franchise player either but look at his past 2 contracts. There are a lot of very bad GMs in the NBA. Point taken. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BwareDWare94 723 Posted June 7, 2012 Joe Johnson isn't a franchise player either but look at his past 2 contracts. There are a lot of very bad GMs in the NBA. I agree that his contracts have been atrocious, but as far as I'm concerned, Joe Johnson is good enough to build a championship worthy team around. The big 3 in Atlanta have underachieved to an alarming extent. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Maverick 791 Posted June 7, 2012 Glad I'm not looking at a bunch of posts saying "The Spurs collapsed/choked." I've been hearing a lot of that on Sirius XM today. I'm not the biggest NBA fan and I only watch the playoffs (root for the Celtics cause of family as some of you know), but I think it's easy to see that. As far as statistics go? Yeah, winning the past 20 and dropping 4 in a row is considered a collapse, but if you watch the games you can see that the Thunder and Scott Brooks made adjustments and their firepower on offense just became too much. Once they figured out a solution to stopping the Spurs offense, the series was over. I got another question for you basketball guys. Harden won the 6th man award this year, Ginoboli another year...if they're so good, why aren't they starting eventually? They certainly seem to get a lot of minutes and be on the court during crunch time. I'm not being a smartass, just something I've been wondering. Is it because their coach believes they make more of an impact off the bench? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Phailadelphia Posted June 7, 2012 Glad I'm not looking at a bunch of posts saying "The Spurs collapsed/choked." I've been hearing a lot of that on Sirius XM today. I'm not the biggest NBA fan and I only watch the playoffs (root for the Celtics cause of family as some of you know), but I think it's easy to see that. As far as statistics go? Yeah, winning the past 20 and dropping 4 in a row is considered a collapse, but if you watch the games you can see that the Thunder and Scott Brooks made adjustments and their firepower on offense just became too much. Once they figured out a solution to stopping the Spurs offense, the series was over. I got another question for you basketball guys. Harden won the 6th man award this year, Ginoboli another year...if they're so good, why aren't they starting eventually? They certainly seem to get a lot of minutes and be on the court during crunch time. I'm not being a smartass, just something I've been wondering. Is it because their coach believes they make more of an impact off the bench? Basically, yes. In OKC, if Harden is in the starting unit then the bench doesn't have a lot of scoring options if the "big 3" are sitting. Harden told Brooks he'd do whatever it takes for the team to win, even if that means taking on the 6th man role. For all intents and purposes though, he plays starter minutes. It's basically the same scenario with Ginobili. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BwareDWare94 723 Posted June 7, 2012 Phail or Zack, how do you view the possibility of the Thunder pursuing Carl Landry in free agency? I think he'd be great off the bench to provide some post scoring. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BwareDWare94 723 Posted June 7, 2012 Glad I'm not looking at a bunch of posts saying "The Spurs collapsed/choked." I've been hearing a lot of that on Sirius XM today. I'm not the biggest NBA fan and I only watch the playoffs (root for the Celtics cause of family as some of you know), but I think it's easy to see that. As far as statistics go? Yeah, winning the past 20 and dropping 4 in a row is considered a collapse, but if you watch the games you can see that the Thunder and Scott Brooks made adjustments and their firepower on offense just became too much. Once they figured out a solution to stopping the Spurs offense, the series was over. I got another question for you basketball guys. Harden won the 6th man award this year, Ginoboli another year...if they're so good, why aren't they starting eventually? They certainly seem to get a lot of minutes and be on the court during crunch time. I'm not being a smartass, just something I've been wondering. Is it because their coach believes they make more of an impact off the bench? Starters also depend on unit chemistry. A lot. Do you really think Boris Diaw ought to start ahead of Blair or Splitter? Hell nah. Also you must recall that Matt Bonner started at center for a year or two, and he's a piece of trash that can shoot threes. If he's on any other team, he might not even make the final roster. It's all about putting your best players and your best chemistry on the floor at the same time, when it comes to starting five. Also, as far as I'm concerned Harden, Ginobili, and Jason Terry are starters in this league. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Phailadelphia Posted June 7, 2012 Phail or Zack, how do you view the possibility of the Thunder pursuing Carl Landry in free agency? I think he'd be great off the bench to provide some post scoring. Won't be able to afford him. Don't know where he'd fit in either. Collison comes off the bench as PF right now and is much more important to the team's success. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BwareDWare94 723 Posted June 7, 2012 Won't be able to afford him. Don't know where he'd fit in either. Collison comes off the bench as PF right now and is much more important to the team's success. He's been stuck in Sacramento and New Orleans the last few years with horrible coaching who did not utilize his talents. I don't think he'll get the contract some think he will. Also, what about Stephen Jackson off the bench? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Phailadelphia Posted June 7, 2012 (edited) He's been stuck in Sacramento and New Orleans the last few years with horrible coaching who did not utilize his talents. I don't think he'll get the contract some think he will. Also, what about Stephen Jackson off the bench? I like the prospect of Carl Landry in OKC, I just don't think it's going to happen. StackJack is interesting though. KD doesn't have a true backup right now and the bench unit desperately needs a better defensive anchor. He could fill that role. Hard to imagine he leaves SAS though. Edited June 7, 2012 by Phailadelphia Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BwareDWare94 723 Posted June 7, 2012 I like the prospect of Carl Landry in OKC, I just don't think it's going to happen. StackJack is interesting though. KD doesn't have a true backup right now and the bench unit desperately needs a better defensive anchor. He could fill that role. Hard to imagine he leaves SAS though. This is true, but if he wants another championship, he has to get out of SAS. Their window is closed, and has been for several years IMO. They're just a great regular season team who ran into two LOLworthy opponents in the first couple of rounds. I still stand by my statement that Memphis would have had a damn good chance of knocking them off. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Phailadelphia Posted June 9, 2012 (edited) http://insider.espn....ks-better-spurs However, while San Antonio's attack has been good, its opponent's attack has been truly great, as Oklahoma City's offense is putting on an historically great playoff run. By the same measure used to grade the Spurs above, the Thunder's offense has been the sixth best of any conference finalist in the past 27 postseasons, producing 9.8 more points per 100 possessions than we'd expect from a league-average team facing the same slate of opponents. 27 years of 4 conference finals teams is a total of 108 teams. And OKC's offense ranks 6th among those. That's RIDICULOUS. Edited June 9, 2012 by Phailadelphia Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
